Just as the Bahamas and Panama provide a safe haven for tax evasion, the UK will provide a safe haven for copyright pirates … until at least 2015. The Ministry of Fun has confirmed that notification provisions - written warnings for downloading stuff illegally, in other words - in the 2010 Digital Economy Act will not be enacted …
Cast stop long, got to get back on with downloading vast amounts of films and TV shows that I may never ever watch :)
Mines the one filled with all my colleagues USBHDD for sharing the goodness of my fibre connection...
Might blank CD-ROM/DVD/Blue-Ray sales pick up again?
It's been literally years since I bought any blank disks. I still have some lying around, collecting dust. Their main use in the past was making backups, but now it seems easier to just use a RAID system, and then occasionally back up to an external hard disk. That's unlikely to change.
But if kids become scared to download MP3 music files and movies, might they just go back to burning copies of each other's CD's?
Yeah, the wholesale downloading probably has to be combated, but I can't envision a rash of kids suddenly buying CD's again.
Perhaps the government should send out warning letters to terrorists to let them know they are onto them. It seems downloaders are seen as a higher priority somehow despite them not actually killing anyone or causing serious injury.
The media lobbies didn't fill the brown envelope enough.....
Re: Might blank CD-ROM/DVD/Blue-Ray sales pick up again?
More likely to be hard drives full of stuff these days. I can fit a few thousand CDs on a device the size of my fingernail...
What if its pr0n?
Maybe the looked at the success (or otherwise) of the French before acting?
Really, there is a need for providers to grasp the inevitable which is no geographic limitations and DRM-free formats that users want. The 'stick' of DRM and legal threats has not worked and is unlikely ever to work, where are the tasty carrots?
"Quite why the Whitehall bureaucrat should rush to the defence of a banker in his Docklands penthouse who is downloading torrents 24x7 remains a mystery."
Let's look at the other side:
Quite why the Whitehall bureaucrat should rush to the defence of a multi-billion dollar industry in order to quash some civil offences using criminal sanctions remains a mystery.
I reckon that, secretly...
The MP's are actually sick and tired of the disingenuous whining and the crocodile tears from the big media lobbies and, while giving them a semblance of compliance, are actually buggering them about until such time as they reckon piracy will be mostly redundant due to offerings like netflix and others. Which probably isn't that far-fetched an idea or that far off, either.
At every step they seem to have capitulated to the corporate wallet-stuffers and yet only enacted the feeblest implementations in policy. I do actually think they might be on the side of common sense (in secret, natch) in this and just stringing the media corps along.
While taking those juicy cash-for-policy backhanders, obviously, and laughing all the way to the bank ;o)
There's nothing like impartial and unbiased reporting...
... and that was nothing like impartial and unbiased reporting.
Why not stick "Opinion" at the top of it, because that's really what it is...
Re: There's nothing like impartial and unbiased reporting...
Kind of reminds me of the Fox News slogan "Fair and Balanced"
Re: "Fair and Balanced"
Like Paris on 8in heels. Not very.
Re: There's nothing like impartial and unbiased reporting...
Well, it is an Orlowski article. On infringment. Pretty obvious how that's going to play.
Under the graduated scheme envisaged in the DEA, only serial scofflaws...
Nice try, but how can anybody guarantee guilt when they can't guarantee that they've even got the right person?
As for the rest if you think HADOPI is actually any good at getting the job done then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
No need to pirate any longer
YouTube is providing films and music legally.
Linux et al are providing free software.
YouPorn is providing adult Entertainement for free.
So why bother with a copyright laws.
Will the new laws really help the artists or copyright owners , NO.
Will the new laws really help ailing software companies , NO.
Will the new laws really help Porn Stars to become rich , NO.
So why bother or is this just another excuse to filter content, play at Cyber Nanny and create silly laws that don't benefit those that should. ( The lawyers are the only ones that will gain anything)
Stealing from someone is taking what they have. If they still have it how can that be stealing?
You are spot on as section 1 of the Theft Act makes abundantly clear. Anyone who calls it theft is an idiot and a legal ignoramus.
No you're not stealing as in physical stealing. If you take a copy, decide you like it, KEEP IT and never pay for it, that is a lost sale. Don't give me that bullshit about, "I was never going to buy it anyway." No you weren't but you got it, you like it and you KEPT IT, you owe them the sale now. I see nothing wrong in downloading anything to see if it's alright for a taster, if you like, pay for it.
Let's be clear, it's not the executive with the ferrari that gets hit, no. It's not the multi-million selling artist that takes the hit, no. It's not even the manager or producers of the content, no. It's the little guys, like you and me. When those at the top start to feel the pinch against their fuck-off big bonuses, they think don't cut back on the bonuses now do they? Nope! They sack those in the middle, one less caterer, one less PR secretary, one less electrician, that could be your wife, girlfriend, brother being laid off when the crunch comes. So you carry on thinking what you put and when someone you care about, who works in the creative industry gets laid off, you keep telling yourself there's nothing wrong in what you do.
"one less caterer, one less PR secretary, one less electrician, that could be your wife, girlfriend, brother being laid off"
Awesome, economic illiteracy and casual sexism thrown in just for laughs.
But they don't take a hit.
In fact in research commissioned by OfCom, it has been shown that infringers may well spend more on legal products than non-infringers. And certain categories of infringers may spend far more than non-infringers and other types of infringers.
Needless to say, this supports what many have thought for some time now. So, tackling copyright infringement may actually cause a negative impact on sales, rather than improving them. (Of course that won't happen anyway, infringers will just use VPNs instead.)
Insist ISPs Inform Infringing Infringers
The act obliges ISPs to notify infringers of their infringements
While I agree with the idea that there is some responsibility for the ISP to make sure their service is not used for illegal purposes, isn't this somewhat like asking your telco to listen in on customers' calls and report any terrorist activity? I am not at all familiar with the legislation, other than what I have read here. I wonder how the various ISPs handling the same monitoring requirements differently will work for the public. To me, this sounds like the government wants to make the rules (and the credit for having Done Something) without taking responsibility for the same.
Re: Insist ISPs Inform Infringing Infringers
Exactly, but the Government are happier to oblige the MEdia-Mafia - much more important to the government to obey the wishes of the rich and powerful than to stop beheadings in the centre of London.
For the rest of the shit we have to put up with....
Makes up (in some small part) for my ever increasing bills.
Thank God for that
We were in danger of losing our Quintessential Pirate Nation Award to the Somalis.
Odd, thought there were already existing laws against copyright infringment, as well as the option of civil recovery? Clealry the only option is a letter and getting ISP's do the leg work instead.
Ho hum, back to the Daily Mail for less sensationalist headlines and editorial crap.
"Ofcom also confirms the minority are wealthy, middle class (ABC1) and under 34 years old. Quite why the Whitehall bureaucrat should rush to the defence of a banker in his Docklands penthouse who is downloading torrents 24x7 remains a mystery. Thanks to Whitehall, he's now a member of what is possibly the most pampered group in Britain."
Exactly how is being part of that minority group "pampered" - what is he getting from the powers that be because he's a wealthy (i.e paying his own way rather than taking state handouts) middle class (i.e not attempting to push out a full football team from his loins) under 34 year old (so no fuel allowance, TV licence discount, free bus pass for him) male that NO ONE else can get?
Still waiting for that legal alternative that is as good as the illegal offering.. But please, do feel free to keep head firmly placed in sand while harping on about "pirates" and their evil evil ways.
Re: Still waiting for that legal alternative that is as good
Yep, for video especially. I bought a DVD a while back that was advertised as including a digital copy, which of course meant Ultraviolet. So after faffing about creating an account with Flixster, getting the app then downloading the file, I have my nice legal, copy of the movie ready to watch on my tablet whenever I fancy.
Except that in order to get to the movie I have to sign in to Flixster. Which means I can't watch my movie when I want after all, because I'm not prepared to cough £20 for the privelige of 1 day of internet at my hotel (another pet hate...)
As it happens I don't download movies - mainly because of shitty internet connectivity - I buy the DVD's and rip them (which is, as I understand it, still technically illegal here in the UK?) so that I have a digital copy I can watch at my convenience whether I'm online or off.
I can't quite believe I'm saying this, but the movie biz might want to take a look at their buddies in music. Apparently this year, in music, piracy is down and revenue is up for the first time in years. This could be a freak year, of course, or it might just have something to do with music being readily available to purchase legally, unencumbered with any DRM, and at a not unreasonable price. Make it easy for people to get your product, don't be stupid with pricing, don't get in the way of them viewing it, and you might just find they'll buy it.
People like the easy option. It's easier for me to get pretty much any track I want from Google Play or iTunes or Amazon for 69p than it is for me to go and find a torrent, and it'll likely be as good quality or better.. If I could do the same with video, at say £5 or £6 for a movie, I would...
Still waiting for that legal alternative that is as good as the illegal offering..
You fucking what?
"I steal because those who wish to charge me haven't yet found a way to offer products to me at the same low zero cost to me of my theft".
Re: Still waiting for that legal alternative that is as good as the illegal offering..
I think you mean copyright infringement.
Unless you're accusing some random on the internet of going into a store and stealing physical media.
In which case that could be libellous.
" Just 3.2 per cent of the internet-connected population does 88 per cent of infringement."
So quite a few people then. I'm guessing in the half to a million people range?
Maybe the government just have more important crap to deal with and don't want to enact a law that could only be a vote loser.
Or maybe they've seen that France are pretty much in the process of abandoning similar legislation on the grounds that it never worked anyway.
Let's see now, a test on speedtest.net topped out at 79.09Mbps
Muiltiplly that by 60 for per minute, multiply by 60 for per hour, multiply for 24 for per day, multiply by roughly 550 days equals...
...running our of HD space in 6 days, and needing over £15,000 worth of HDs to cope with that much downloading until 2015! Then, assuming 7gb per 1.5 hours, I'd be set to watch over 10 years of continual 720p video.
Re: Let's see now, a test on speedtest.net topped out at 79.09Mbps
did you remember to convert Mb into MB ?
Busy filling my shed with usb drives.
Re: Me too-
I'm thinking of 'Going Green' and moving my shed to Iceland.
That was quite the interesting segue: From digital media legislation to windmills. I don't think I've ever seen someone connect such disparate points: Except that time I saw a man comparing a doughnut to an apple.
>>"Just 1.6 per cent of UK internet users over the age of 12 are the top 10 per cent of copyright infringers, responsible for 79 per cent of infringement."
Is that a rather circuitous way of saying that 16% of UK internet users are copyright infringers?
What's the point?
"the minority are wealthy, middle class (ABC1) and under 34 years old."
Which means the freetard minority can afford a VPN or proxy service, and have technical competence to install and use it effectively.
This will just add £10 per month to internet subs
All anyone who wants to get round it has to do is to sign up to a VPN.
In the meantime, people like me, who already have as Sky sub and access to Game of Thrones, will be demonised when they download the torrents so they can watch them in bed with a remote control.
I torrent a lot, but about 99% of that is stuff I have paid for, but dumb people like Sky make hard to access the way I want to.
If Sky made it's stuff playable on XBMC there would be no problem for me. But, they are stupid. At least Steam makes my gaming easy so I don't need to torrent my games.
looks like 1984 is coming true after all and the media-mafia are doing their best to piss off paying customers.
Re: This will just add £10 per month to internet subs
"looks like 1984 is coming true after all and the media-mafia are doing their best to piss off paying customers."
And that's the rub, isn't it?
The obsession that the TV and movie industries have with (unsuccessfully) attempting to protect their content is merely giving their customers a piss-poor user experience (e.g Ultraviolet), right-royally pissing them off and actually encouraging them to turn to the "pirates".
The music industry seems to have learned its lesson. You can now easily buy unencumbered mp3s and surprise, surprise, the music industry is now turning up healthy profits from legal downloads and music piracy is on the wane.
I'll finish this piece for you. [no charge]
"The Digital Economy Act [there] was passed by a majority of 142 with support from both the Labour and Conservative front benches, " ... in the dying hours of the last parliament by the remnants of MPs left in the chamber.
The sitting parliament will be best remembered for the abuse of the expenses system, which saw a vast numbers of parliamentarians extracting as much cash from the tax payer as possible. Although one or two went on to receive prison sentences, most just gave a portion of the defrauded money back and got away without charge, itself an unusual circumstance when being caught committing fraud. The following parliament failed to enact legislation to ensure further scandals received a more suitable punishment, why, we may never find out.
When news of the vote came out, many voters wondered how much cash their representatives might be receiving from the media industry for voting through such a miserable piece of legislation, for after all its perfectly possible to sue a copyright infringer in the courts without this legislation, however the cost of doing so would fall to tax avoiding multinationals rather than the ordinary tax paying citizen.
More from this author by paying hard cash.
I'm chuffed about another setback for big media. However, none of this will ever have any effect on my behaviour or on that of anyone else with even the smallest amount of technical nous.
Give me a fair alternative and I shall use it. Fail to do so and I shall cheerfully continue to pirate with impunity.
"Give me a fair alternative..."
Excuse me?! iTunes, 70p for an MP3 track ain't exactly daylight robbery and believe it or not people do actually like to be paid for working! You're not paying for the film or the music, you're paying for the hard work that's gone into making it. So if a mechanic fixes your car, would you say, "Fuck you, I ain't paying!" and drive off?
Just thought I'd let you know, I block all the adverts from the reg, so I get to read your work for free too.
Hopefully this will put you off investing the long hours of graft that produce such thought provoking journal-jism.
How I knew the author of the article without going past the title
I love these people, "Fuck 'em! I'm going to carry on ripping off stuff!".
Never used to care less about copyright infringement, used to dip in and help myself when I felt like it. Only when I started making something creative myself, photography, expected payment for my hard work and then watched people rip it off, then I knew what it was like on the other side of the fence. What makes it worse is when you ask people to stop, take your stuff down 'cos they used it without permission and all you get is, "It's on the internet, don't like it, don't upload it you sucker!". Like to see shoplifters try that one, "Don't like people stealing from TESCO, then TESCO shouldn't have stuff on their shelves!". Argue all the semantics you like about "it's only a clone, the original is still there and intact unlike physical theft". Well sure, but artists want to be paid for their hard work. We're not all trippy-hippy types who think art should be free. Bollocks! I work hard to travel, buy equipment and shoot images the least I ask is you pay me the going rate for my work and not just see it as a stream of data in a file that you can use and abuse without asking me what I think about what happens to my work.
"It's only one copy, won't hurt anyone!". In terms of the fatcat bastards at the top, no it won't make a blind bit of difference, they get paid, they still get their fat paycheque and huge bonus. What it does do though is it means they see the margins getting tightened and that gets closer to their fat bonuses, you know what they do? They hire one less lighting guy. They hire one less caterer. They don't take on that intern. That make-up artist, photographer, bog-cleaner is out of job. So no the fatcats and probably the artists don't get hit, but the support staff, people doing 9-5 jobs like you and me, the people who work really hard and pay their taxes, they're the ones who get hit first.
I can hear you now, "Oh boo-hoo, so some fat roadie is out of job! Big deal, I still got the lastest album by XYZ and the last cam-screener of blockbuster ABC, who cares!". Fair enough. I know it can't be stopped now, we all now that, we all have to accept that and make the decision whether to bother creating or simply give up and get some soul destroying job. You carry on ripping stuff off though, fill your boots! You carry on thinking it's an endless pit of stuff, then one day all that will be left is the dross, when the real creatives have simply given up, all that will be left will be the mindless X-Factor shit that no one wants to pay for, let alone rip off.
I'll refer you to a reply I made further up.
There is no evidence to suggest that copyright infringement has an impact on sales of media. In fact, OfCom research suggests the opposite is actually true.
It's not that those with more money like to steal more than those with less
It's just that smarter people tend to earn more money and smarter people generally get on better with technology and can wrap their head around torrenting while the dumb dumbs don't quite get it.
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Ofcom will not probe lesbian lizard snog in new Dr Who series
- Episode 9 BOFH: The current value of our IT ASSets? Minus eleventy-seven...
- Too slow with that iPhone refresh, Apple: Android is GOBBLING up US mobile market
- Kaspersky backpedals on "done nothing wrong, nothing to fear" company article